Integrated physical and mental healthcare: an overview of models and their evaluation findings.

Dominiek Coates, Danielle Coppleson, Virginia Schmied
{"title":"Integrated physical and mental healthcare: an overview of models and their evaluation findings.","authors":"Dominiek Coates,&nbsp;Danielle Coppleson,&nbsp;Virginia Schmied","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Comorbid physical and mental health problems are common across the age spectrum. However, services addressing these health concerns are typically siloed and disconnected. Over the past 2 decades efforts have been made to design integrated services to address the physical and mental health needs of the population but little is known about the characteristics of effective integrated care models. The aim of the review was to map the design of integrated care initiatives/models and to describe how the models were evaluated and their evaluation findings.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using a scoping review methodology, quantitative and qualitative evidence was systematically considered. To identify studies, Medline, PubMed, PsychINFO, CINAHL were searched for the period from 2003 to 2018, and reference lists of included studies and review articles were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The current review identified 43 studies, describing 37 models of integrated physical and mental healthcare. Although modest in terms of evaluation design, it is evident that models are well received by consumers and providers, increase service access, and improve physical and mental health outcomes. Key characteristics of models include shared information technology, financial integration, a single-entry point, colocated care, multidisciplinary teams, multidisciplinary meetings, care coordination, joint treatment plan, joint treatment, joint assessment/joint assessment document, agreed referral criteria and person-centred care. Although mostly modest in term of research design, models were well received by consumers and providers, increased service access and improved physical and mental health outcomes. There was no clear evidence regarding whether models of integrated care are cost neutral, increase or reduce costs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Future research is needed to identify the elements of integrated care that are associated with outcomes, measure cost implications and identify the experiences and priorities of consumers and clinicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":55996,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000215","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000215","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Background: Comorbid physical and mental health problems are common across the age spectrum. However, services addressing these health concerns are typically siloed and disconnected. Over the past 2 decades efforts have been made to design integrated services to address the physical and mental health needs of the population but little is known about the characteristics of effective integrated care models. The aim of the review was to map the design of integrated care initiatives/models and to describe how the models were evaluated and their evaluation findings.

Method: Using a scoping review methodology, quantitative and qualitative evidence was systematically considered. To identify studies, Medline, PubMed, PsychINFO, CINAHL were searched for the period from 2003 to 2018, and reference lists of included studies and review articles were examined.

Results: The current review identified 43 studies, describing 37 models of integrated physical and mental healthcare. Although modest in terms of evaluation design, it is evident that models are well received by consumers and providers, increase service access, and improve physical and mental health outcomes. Key characteristics of models include shared information technology, financial integration, a single-entry point, colocated care, multidisciplinary teams, multidisciplinary meetings, care coordination, joint treatment plan, joint treatment, joint assessment/joint assessment document, agreed referral criteria and person-centred care. Although mostly modest in term of research design, models were well received by consumers and providers, increased service access and improved physical and mental health outcomes. There was no clear evidence regarding whether models of integrated care are cost neutral, increase or reduce costs.

Conclusion: Future research is needed to identify the elements of integrated care that are associated with outcomes, measure cost implications and identify the experiences and priorities of consumers and clinicians.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
综合身心保健:模型概述及其评价结果。
背景:共病的身体和精神健康问题是普遍的年龄谱。但是,解决这些运行状况问题的服务通常是孤立的和断开连接的。在过去20年里,人们努力设计综合服务,以满足人口的身心健康需求,但对有效的综合护理模式的特点知之甚少。回顾的目的是绘制综合护理计划/模式的设计图,并描述如何评估这些模式及其评估结果。方法:采用范围评价方法,系统地考虑定量和定性证据。为了确定研究,检索了2003年至2018年期间的Medline、PubMed、PsychINFO、CINAHL,并检查了纳入的研究和综述文章的参考文献列表。结果:目前的综述确定了43项研究,描述了37种综合身心保健模型。虽然在评价设计方面比较有限,但很明显,这些模式深受消费者和提供者的欢迎,增加了服务的可及性,并改善了身心健康结果。这些模式的主要特点包括共享信息技术、财务整合、单一入口点、联合护理、多学科团队、多学科会议、护理协调、联合治疗计划、联合治疗、联合评估/联合评估文件、商定的转诊标准和以人为本的护理。虽然这些模型在研究设计方面大多不太完善,但它们受到了消费者和提供者的好评,增加了服务的可及性,改善了身心健康结果。关于综合护理模式是否成本中立、增加或减少成本,没有明确的证据。结论:未来的研究需要确定与结果相关的综合护理要素,衡量成本影响,确定消费者和临床医生的经验和优先事项。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: ​​The International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare is the official journal of the Joanna Briggs Institute. It is a fully refereed journal that publishes manuscripts relating to evidence-based medicine and evidence-based practice. It publishes papers containing reliable evidence to assist health professionals in their evaluation and decision-making, and to inform health professionals, students and researchers of outcomes, debates and developments in evidence-based medicine and healthcare. ​ The journal provides a unique home for publication of systematic reviews (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, economic, scoping and prevalence) and implementation projects including the synthesis, transfer and utilisation of evidence in clinical practice. Original scholarly work relating to the synthesis (translation science), transfer (distribution) and utilization (implementation science and evaluation) of evidence to inform multidisciplinary healthcare practice is considered for publication. The journal also publishes original scholarly commentary pieces relating to the generation and synthesis of evidence for practice and quality improvement, the use and evaluation of evidence in practice, and the process of conducting systematic reviews (methodology) which covers quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, economic, scoping and prevalence methods. In addition, the journal’s content includes implementation projects including the transfer and utilisation of evidence in clinical practice as well as providing a forum for the debate of issues surrounding evidence-based healthcare.
期刊最新文献
Quality of reporting in abstracts of clinical trials using physical activity interventions: a cross-sectional analysis using the CONSORT for Abstracts Perceived impact of a one-week journalology training course on scientific reporting competencies: prospective survey Artificial intelligence in health and science: an introspection A relação entre linguagem e práticas pseudocientíficas Prevalence of Diabetes Mellitus among individuals with chronic kidney disease: systematic review and meta-analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1